Maryland redistricting ballot question blocked by second judge

A second judge has ruled against a ballot question proposing changes to Maryland’s congressional redistricting rules. But the legal battles are far from over.

In a Dorchester County case, Circuit Court Judge S. James Sarbanes on Friday ordered that the question cannot go before voters in November, echoing a ruling earlier this week in a similar case filed in Anne Arundel County.

The state has appealed both cases, and they’re set for oral arguments in the Supreme Court of Maryland on Thursday.

Both cases challenge the Maryland General Assembly’s decision to tweak the state constitution to make clear that congressional districts can be drawn without taking into account compactness, natural boundaries and city and county lines.

Lawmakers approved the change during a special legislative session early this month, sending the question to voters for approval during the November general election.

The constitutional change would give the Democratic majority of lawmakers a freer hand in drawing districts in the future — allowing them to draw districts that would make it difficult for U.S. Rep. Andy Harris, the state’s only Republican member of Congress, to win reelection.

The constitutional amendment was the culmination of a bitter year of infighting among Maryland Democrats. Some, led by Gov. Wes Moore and House of Delegates Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk, wanted to immediately redraw the maps to counter Republican map-drawing in other states. Others, led by Senate President Bill Ferguson, urged restraint.

Republicans opposed all of it, and two GOP groups quickly filed lawsuits to try to block the question from going to voters.

Advocacy groups on both sides of the constitutional amendment also sprang up: Fight Back Maryland supports it, while Protect Maryland Votes opposes it.

In the Anne Arundel case, Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson ruled that lawmakers violated their own deadlines for ballot measures. That’s because earlier this year, lawmakers passed a law signed by Moore that set a July 1 deadline for the secretary of state to certify summaries of all statewide ballot questions. Lawmakers approved the redistricting question in August.

The plaintiffs in the Dorchester case also argued that lawmakers blew their deadline and violated their own rules, and that they wrote a constitutional amendment that would be “inaccurate and misleading” to voters. The plaintiffs, a Dorchester County Republican official and several GOP state lawmakers, also said the constitutional amendment improperly included two topics: standards for drawing districts and changing which court hears redistricting challenges.

“In reality, the General Assembly seeks to nullify the Maryland Constitution’s provisions that prevent it from engaging in partisan gerrymandering, giving itself a free pass to do exactly that,” the plaintiffs wrote in the Dorchester case.

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs on all of their points.

The ruling was vindication for Sen. Chris West of Baltimore County, a plaintiff in the case who raised concerns and argued against the constitutional amendment during the special legislative session.

“You simply can’t amend the constitution by misleading voters,” West said Friday.

The matter of whether voters will see the question on their ballots will rest with the Supreme Court of Maryland. The high court is facing a tight time frame, as election officials must finalize, print and begin mailing ballots in September.

The Dorchester plaintiffs said in a statement that they are confident the high court will agree with the “unequivocal” rulings from the lower courts.

Del. Kris Fair, a Frederick Democrat and key proponent of the constitutional change, said in a statement that the court battles will continue.

“This fight was always headed to the Supreme Court,” Fair said, “and we will keep fighting to ensure Maryland voters get to decide Maryland’s future.”